Thesis (D. Min.)--Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2001. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 207-212).

Thesis (D. Min.)--Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2001. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 207-212).

Zugl.: Univ. of Pretoria, Diss., 2002

In this study I have sought to explore the theoretical foundations of the French artist Daniel Buren's work and its subsequent resonance in a context of emergent cultural conservatism. The study also traces, the increasingly tenuous position of the avant-garde, the survival of which is contingent on the presence of certain liberal democratic institutions. For me these concerns led to a systematic investigation of the censorship of Buren's installation at the 1971 Guggenheim International Exhibition. This was the last in a series of exhibitions that was to promote international goodwill by bringing together the best of recently produced works by contemporary avant-garde artists from around the world, and awarding prizes to those considered outstanding. But the real ideological significance of this show was apparent in the aggressive attempt by the administrators of the Guggenheim to promote American cultural superiority. Buren was invited to contribute a piece to the show in the belief that his work fit into the formalist mode around which the exhibition was organized. Yet the day before the show opened Museum officials suddenly decided to remove his work from the exhibition. The official explanation provided by the authorities of the Guggenheim cited the size and placement of Buren's work as being in direct conflict with the work of other artists in the exhibition. However, this explanation was clearly specious given that the Guggenheim officials knew months in advance exactly what this work would look like, and its intended place of installation. Moreover, Museum officials used the complaints of four participating artists as justification for their actions. Meanwhile, fifteen other artists in the show objected to the Museum's use of censorship. The issue of the Guggenheim Museum's sudden decision to withdraw Buren's installation from the Sixth Guggenheim International is thus more complex than the official explanation would indicate. My thesis contends that the abrupt removal of Daniel Buren's work is traceable to efforts by Guggenheim officials to protect other works in the exhibition, and the International series as a whole, from floating into the avant-gardist-traditionalist polemic that had again flared up in the New York art world. Chapters One and Two examine the organization of the 1971 Guggenheim International and the rationale behind that organization. Chapter Three looks at the threefold controversy surrounding the 1971 International: the conflict that arose between participating artists, the questions of censorship that were raised by the actions of Museum officials, and the overwhelmingly hostile critical response to the exhibition. This study investigates a period of social and epistemological rupture in American art, the reverberations of which continue to be felt today. / Arts, Faculty of / Art History, Visual Art and Theory, Department of / Graduate

Cornelia Posselt beschäftigt sich in ihrem Artikel mit der künstlerischen Gestaltung des Schonsteins des Heizkraftwerks Chemnitz, die durch den Künstler Daniel Buren geschaffen wurde.

No description available.

Although the ‘death of God’ theology attracted considerable attention during the 1960s, in recent decades it has fallen into neglect. Nonetheless, the issues raised by the ‘death of God’ theology were important ones and it remains an interesting question whether the ‘death of God’ theologians were able to make substantial contributions to them. This thesis re-examines the work of the ‘death of God’ theologians. It argues that the popular view – that the ‘death of God’ theology represented a common tendency, or movement, towards atheism among certain prominent American Protestant theologians – is mistaken. Through a series of detailed studies of Thomas J.J. Altizer (chapters 3 and 4), William Hamilton (Chapter 5), Paul van Buren (Chapter 6), and Harvey Cox (Chapter 7), the thesis shows not only that the significance of the ‘death of God’ theologians has been widely misinterpreted, but that their work contains a number of features which have been under-emphasised or even overlooked. The aim of the thesis is to provide a more balanced contemporary reading of their work. The work of Altizer receives special attention and a case is made for the view that he should be read as a Protestant mystic of a peculiar sort.

Prenant comme bornes chronologiques les grandes mutations que connait le paysage institutionnel français, ce travail analyse comment les lieux culturels deviennent un terrain d'action critique pour les artistes. La première partie montre qu'avec l'indexation de l'oeuvre sur le contexte les pratiques in situ sont l'aboutissement de la logique d'ancrage dans la société que les courants artistiques des années 1960 promeuvent. En proposant une généalogie de ces pratiques à partir des oeuvres de Jean-Michel Sanejouant, Mark Brusse et Daniel Buren, l'auteur défend l'idée qu'elles constituent un préalable nécessaire à la mise en cause des lieux culturels. La seconde partie engage une discussion des catégories établies par l'historiographie - majoritairement anglo-saxonne. Si les récits développés au sujet des notions "Site specificity" et d'"Institutional critique" informent la reflexion, il est proposé en retour de les réviser à l'aune du cas français, notamment de l'oeuvre d'André Cadere. La troisième partie aborde les rapports que les pratiques artistiques critiques entretiennent avec les mouvements contestataires : après les soulèvements de 1968, les lieux culturels deviennent de véritables espaces de protestation. En s'intéressant à une série d'évènements significatifs, tels que les Biennales de Paris de 1969 et 1971, l'exposition "72-72" ou l'ouverture du Centre Georges Pompidou, l'auteur explore les multiples positions et modes d'action critiques qui s'invitent sur le terrain des lieux culturels : vision réformatrice, activisme, pratiques artistiques critiques. Ce travail constitue ainsi une investigation sur les rapports entre mouvements sociaux et critique artiste dans la France des années 1960-1970 / Taking as chronological markers the major changes that the French institutional landscape experiences, this work analyzes how cultural places become a field of critical action for artists. The first part shows that with the indexing of the work on the context in situ practices are the result of the logic of anchoring in society that 1960s artistic movements promote. By providing a genealogy of these practices from the works of Jean-Michel Sanejouand, Mark Brusse and Daniel Buren, the auhor argues that they are a necessary prerequisite for the questioning of cultural venues. The second part undertakes a discussion of the categories established by the historiography - mainly Anglo-Saxon. If the stories developed about the concept "Site specificity" and "Institutional critique" inform the discussion, it was proposed in return for review in the light of the French case, especially the work of André Cadere. The third part discusses the reports that the critical artistic practices have with the protest movements : after the uprisings of 1968, cultural veneus become real protest sites. By focusing on a series of significant events such as the Paris Biennials of 1969 and 1971, the "72-72" exhibition or opening of thez Pompidou Centre, the author explores the multiple positions and modes of critical action that invite in the field of cultural venues : reforming vision, activism, critical artistic practices. This work is thus an investigation on the relationship between social movements and artist critic in France from 1960-1970

This thesis examines three students of Karl Barth’s work, all of whom articulate Christian theologies of Israel and Judaism under the influence of his thought and thus the wording of the title, after him. The three theologians are Paul M. van Buren (1924-1998), John Howard Yoder (1927-1997), and Robert Jenson (1930-2017). All three studied with or were supervised by Barth during the 1950s. Later, each of them would make significant contributions to post-Holocaust theologies of Israel and Judaism. In this thesis, I seek to elucidate the conceptual relationship between these two elements—each theologian’s early engagement with Barth and their later contributions to post-Holocaust theology—and argue that by examining the former, one can better understand the theological bases for the latter. I begin with an analysis of Barth’s doctrine of Israel. Barth claims that Israel and rabbinic Judaism are eternally determined to be witnesses to God’s own self-determination in Jesus Christ to be the God whose mercy rules in God’s judgment. A close comparative reading of van Buren, Yoder, and Jenson then follows. I begin by outlining the ways these three theologians appropriate and depart from Barth during or shortly after their time studying with him. I then trace the way each theologian’s early appropriation of and departure from Barth relates fundamentally to the development of their theologies of Israel and Judaism. My analysis reveals that each of the three critique Barth’s doctrine of God’s self-determination as the pre-determination of the identity of Israel and Judaism to be witnesses of Jesus Christ. This common critique enables each of the three to articulate a more positive account of Israel’s and rabbinic Judaism’s witness. / Dissertation / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / This thesis examines three students of Karl Barth’s work, all of whom articulate Christian theologies of Israel and Judaism under the influence of his thought and thus the wording of the title, after him. Paul M. van Buren, John Howard Yoder, and Robert Jenson studied with or were supervised by Barth in the 1950s. Each of them would later make significant contributions to post-Holocaust theologies of Israel and Judaism. In this thesis, I seek to elucidate the conceptual relationship between these two elements—each theologian’s early engagement with Barth and their later contributions to post-Holocaust theology. My analysis reveals that these three theologians all critique Barth’s doctrine of God’s self-determination as the pre-determination of the identity of Israel and Judaism to be witnesses of God’s judgment. This critique enables each of the three to articulate a more positive account of Israel’s and rabbinic Judaism’s witness.

No description available.